Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dethklok" data-source="post: 6135963" data-attributes="member: 6746469">Ugh - I'm posting from the same computer as Elysia and accidentally posted from her account. This is what I get for posting so late at night! By this reasoning, a dGoogol system is every bit as good as a d10  system. Do you think that the requirement that one carry, count out,  roll, and then write out the results for one hundred d10's  makes this dGoogol system merely subjectively bad? And, if so, can you  find us one single person who would actually find such a system not only  fun but preferable to other systems?     In a game with as few as ten skills which max out as low as 10, it would take a hundred  sessions to max out all of those skills. Further given a mechanic  something like RuneQuest uses, one could be given only a skill roll  to increase a skill, which would then double the amount of sessions  required to max out these skills, all without the need to resort to XP.  When you consider that most rpgs have much, much larger skillsets, this  cannot be a significant problem even for a system that restricted itself  to d10's, let alone d20. Knowing this, it should be easy to understand  why, in my experience with the 2d6 games I always play with, none of us  have never come close to maxing anything out.   Yes, I understand. Do you also think that all designs for bridges are  equally good. Or, are all possible temperatures are equally good for  cooking a souffle? Or do you think that all coding styles are equally  good for computer programs? There is a reason that chefs, civil  engineers, and computer programmers go to school for years to develop  the ability to produce code, bridges, and food - all designs, styles,  and kinds are not equally good.   Really? Because the best answer for  "what is the integral of 4x with respect to x" is "2x^2 plus an  arbitrary constant of integration," with "2x^2" being less good, and all  other answers being bad.   Oh thank goodness. Please tell me you know how maths work! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   Yikes. Wouldn't this be more a question for the social sciences? Because  even though there is an objective component to the debate, there are  definitely subjective elements as well. You might be able to model them  as noise or something, but they would probably interact with the  different levels of granularity in predictable ways - no one wants to  roll d36, even though numbers would be generated exactly the same way as  d100: (1d6-1) * 6 + 1d6. And few people like d12 or d4 systems because  the d12 and d4 always rolled awkwardly. If it mattered, I might be able  to come up with an equation that measured only the value of a system  with respect to granularity and mathematical inconvenience... but even  there I could easily be accused of weighting things specifically so that  the d100 came out badly.Not at all! Without these kinds of musings the thread would consist of  nothing other than disgruntled posters pinching the bridges of their  noses and wondering why they spend so much time arguing on the internet.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />(I didn't see your post when I wrote this response, but I'll give a better answer after other posters have had a chance.)</blockquote>

Verification